Re: your mail

[Daniel Kronemann <kron4155@uidaho.edu>]

On Mon, 17 Jun 2002, Douglas wrote:

> My question is: if evolution has not stopped, then the evolution of
> the "next" human race would evolve out of one of current branches. And
> that macro step would be preceded by micro steps. If you accept the
> idea of evolutionary "progress" at all (which is in itself a
> contradiction), then does this not give a biological imprimatur to
> racism in principle? One group is now proving itself "fitter" than the
> others.

Well, again I hold that there are no "branches" of different humans.  If
evolution were the only force working on our species, then I would
hypothesize that equal force would be applied to each "race" and together
each would "progress" in evolution.  However, our unpresidented type of
intelligence on Earth has had an enormous affect (at least potentially) on
our evolution.  Our ability to solve evolutionary problems without
evolution solving them itself and our conflicts amongst each other could
alter an extremely slow process like evolution to take a different path.
For example, some hold that wisdom teeth and the appendix are examples of
our evolution.  They are unnecessary (perhaps useless) parts and we are
evolving to get rid of them.  But our ability to surgically remove them
now doesn't allow natural selection (those born with smaller and smaller
wisdom teeth and smaller and smaller appendixes) to "eliminate" (what a
harsh word, sorry) those whose wisdom teeth destroy their jaw so they
can't eat, or those whose appendixes explode.  Then our own conflicts are
detrimental also.  Genicides and slavery have eliminated a lot of genetic
diversity from the human population, so evolution would not have as much
to work with.  Evolution might have us "eliminated" all together
eventually.  I can see though that it might seem harsh when you attach a
lot of value to human life.

> This ties in with the issue of "truth claims." Evolution is disputed by
> lots of people -- as Malcolm Muggeridge put it, in retrospect evolution
> will be seen as one of the great jokes of history. But this is neither
> here nor there. The fact is that it is disputed. When you are deciding
> what to teach (or not) in the government schools, do you go with the
> sociological fact that it is significantly disputed and teach all sides?

I would agree with you here.  Using science to explain all in a dogmatic
attempt to objectify everything would be not the road to diverse thinking.
Scientists-in-training should be taught to think critically, especially
when it comes to scientific methodology.  If you can't directly (or
indirectly) observe something that doesn't necessitate that it can't be
true.  To hold that only objectivism is the way to truth doesn't seem to
hold.  If Science were (and maybe it is) being taught like that then I
could see your concern about people being raised as atheists.  However, I
don't know maybe scienctists who are atheist, but with the coming
generations we shall see.  With something like evolution, it should be
stated that it is disputed and that no one knows it all or has the whole
truth and here is what many different people think, and some "evidence"
for everything.  Then I guess its up to the student to believe what they
decide.

Anyways, that would be what I would want.  Everyone to have an opportunity
to get as much information as they can before making a decision about what
to believe.  And despite that, whatever anyone believes, that we can live
together and enjoy the differences it brings.  Anyways, I don't know what
worldview that boxes me into.

Love

Daniel